Select two of the scenarios listed below and explain the best solution for each.
Scenario 1—Contracts
Dr. Delgado, a pediatrician entered into an employment agreement with the All Children’s Hospital. According to the contract, after termination of her employment for any reason, Delgado could not compete with the hospital by working within a 100-mile radius of it for two years. One year after resigning from the hospital, Dr. Delgado opened her own pediatric practice within 75 miles of the hospital and began seeing patients. All Children’s Hospital filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against her.
- Provide potential arguments for both parties regarding the breach of the non-compete contract lawsuit. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario.
Scenario 2—Intellectual Property
Professor Klug teaches tort law for Las Vegas School of Law, a for-profit law school. Several times during the semester, the professor made copies of various articles and distributed them to his students. Unbeknownst to Klug, the daughter of one of the article’s authors was a student in his class. The daughter told her father about Klug’s copying, which took place without the father’s or publisher’s permission. The father sues Klug for copyright infringement. Klug claims protection under the fair use doctrine.
- Provide arguments for each party. Determine which party will win. Provide support for the arguments and the final answer with cases or scholarly articles from the South University Online Library.
Scenario 3—Antitrust
Mitchell Dawson and three of his friends purchased nonrefundable tickets from Live Nation Entertainment to attend a concert at the Straz Center in Tampa. The front of the ticket included a printed statement that the price included a $10 parking fee. Dawson and his friends hired an Uber driver to take them to the concert.
Frustrated at being charged for parking that he did not need, Dawson filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Live Nation arguing that the bundled parking fee was unfair since consumers were forced to pay it in order to attend the concert. He asserted the tying arrangement violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- Present the arguments that both parties to the lawsuit would make.
- Select a winner and support your choice.
Scenario 4—Consumer Protection
On February 1, a salesperson for Metropolitan Life Insurance met with the Drakes at their home. The Drakes lived in a 55+ retirement community with a homeowners association that prohibited door-to-door sales. After facing a persuasive sales pitch about the importance of providing for the surviving spouse and their kids and grandkids, the Drakes signed a contract to purchase a life insurance policy for a total of $3000 per year. A down payment of $100 was required, with the remainder of the cost to be paid in monthly payments. Two days later, the Drakes had second thoughts about purchasing the insurance. Mr. Drake contacted the insurance company and stated that they had decided to cancel the contract. The insurance company said it would be impossible to cancel the first year and the Drakes would be in breach of contract if they did not make all of the payments.
- Did Metropolitan Life Insurance violate any consumer laws by not allowing the Drakes to rescind their contract? Explain.
Solution
Scenario 1—Contracts
In the case of All Children’s Hospital vs. Dr. Delgado, the central issue revolves around the enforceability of the non-compete agreement that Dr. Delgado signed as part of her employment contract with the hospital. The hospital claims that by opening her own pediatric practice within 75 miles of the hospital, Delgado violated the agreement, which prohibited her from competing within a 100-mile radius for two years after termination.
Arguments for All Children’s Hospital:
The hospital would argue that Dr. Delgado’s actions constitute a clear breach of contract. Non-compete agreements are commonly used to protect an employer’s business interests, particularly where the employee has access to confidential information or might impact the employer’s competitive advantage. In this case, All Children’s Hospital would likely argue that the non-compete clause is necessary to safeguard its patient base, market position, and investments in Delgado during her tenure as an employee. They would assert that the 100-mile restriction is reasonable given the specialized nature of pediatric care and the potential overlap in patient demographics between the hospital and Delgado’s new practice.
Enforcing the non-compete would be framed as necessary to prevent unfair competition. Non-compete agreements are generally enforceable as long as… Please click on the Icon below to purchase the full answer at only $10
Instant Download on Payment
